Film Annotations 1. Title, director and release year?
Erin Brockovich, directed by Steven Soderbergh, released in 2000. (I remember watching this movie when I was younger.)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This movie is based on the true story of a company polluting the area's water supply with chemicals, trying to cover it up, and then getting sued to pay punitive damages to the citizens of the local area that they had basically been poisoning. There are a few lessons that can be learned from this incident and film, including not to blindly trust a company at their word so it's smart to get a second opinion or third party to verify information, companies CAN be held accountable for their actions, and yes, pollution and the release of toxic chemicals into the environment really does have devastating consequences.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
This movie brings the audience through the whole story by following Erin Brockovich's experience with inquiring about information in legal documents while working at a local law firm. The real Erin Brockovich was consulted throughout the writing and movie process, and Julia Roberts portrays her in the movie. I believe the film tries to maintain as accurate as possible to the real sequence of events.
Yes, there is an emotional appeal, because you get to develop images and understandings in your mind about what the families of Hinkley went through, and the hard work and frustration Brockivich herself went through. You get to know these characters htroughout the movie, and you get to see their hardships, then realize that this situation really happened. I think that movies are always more shocking and touch home when you find out that it really happened at one point. It's like the Titanic, that movie wouldn't have been anywhere near the hit it was if it weren't based off of real events. An example of the hardship once of the women that lived in the area had to endure is this, "Donna: You think if you have no uterus and no breasts, technically you're still a woman? Brockovich: Well yeah, sure you are. You're a happier woman because you don't have to worry about maxi-pads and underwire." Honestly, that's pretty damn heart-wrenching.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political?
When Brockovich went to a professor for knowledge on chromium, he advised her not to be too loud about her research because "incriminating records have a habit of being lost when they smell trouble".
With situations like these happening in small towns such as Hinkley, then small town politics gets involved. Neighbors take sides and let their own bullshit from previous years get in the way of understanding what is going on. Decisions can also depend on a small few of a town committee, and their decisions could easily be bought. It reminds me of back in my town, Cricket Valley Energy wanted and has been cleared to put in a natural gas refinery in my town within two miles of the school. The initial voting went through our very small town board, that consisted of families that basically own the town, and they were treated to expensive dinners when they were approached with this. My town board passed the notion to put the refinery in our town before any of the research on environmental impact and safety was even finished. They later got a lot of backlash and the company was made to go through the EIP and more, but still. Local small town politics isn't the same as the politics we saw nationally, and can have a major influence on these things.
Legal Process
$250,000 is all the first representative from PG&E was authorized to offer the Jensons for their home - but in terms of their medical records and bills, that doesn't even come close. PGE (Pacific Gas and Electric) is an enormous corporation, and they had sent someone to the law office immediately once they started sending in claims, and it wasn't even a negotiation. He warned the law office that PGE was a $28 billion corporation.
Punitive damages are what they would have to try to go for in order to make a difference in the lives of the people in the case, and basically it comes down to what this one judge decides, if he believes in the evidence backing the lawsuit or if he decides to side with the corporation - Judge was from adjacent town and was disturbed by evidence, so he upheld the lawsuit. This was lucky, because it seems that strings could be pulled and the corporation involved in the case could influence the court system so they get a judge favorable of economic growth and corporation.
In order to make a difference they have to go after PGE Corporate, not PGE in Hinkley, CA. But in order to do that they have to find proof, documentation of correspondence between the 2 in order to go after PGE Corporate
Before they go to arbitration they needed to get the plaintiffs to agree, usually 75% but in their case PGE asked for 90% because the Potter lawyers messed up the arbitration - which in turn made the Hinkley community confused and angry because they were expecting a trial.
They got a majority of the plaintiffs to sign the petition at the Hinkley town meeting, but they were about 150 short, so Erin and Ed went door to door to get the rest of the plaintiffs they needed, and did! All 634 plaintiffs!
Judge came back with a number for the group - $333 million, Jensen's alone got $5 million.
It was the largest direct-action lawsuit in US history.
Economic?
The small law office didn't initially want to take the class action lawsuit on because it could be soooo long, might get buried in paperwork, costs will be easily $100,000/mo for experts involved, which is why it can be hard for "the little man" to go against such enormous corporations, because the upfront costs with no definite return can be too much. The small law office decided to partner with a more experienced history with these laws suits, and had the money to back the case, this was Kurt Potter.
Donna Jensen was approached by P&GE to buy their house, and she didn't want to sell because she didn't think that they would pay the right value, they wanted to buy an off-ramp to the plant.
Technological?
The office where the public records were kept that Brockovich searched through was a complete mess. This was before computers had transitioned in completely in the workplace and physicals papers were supposed to be filed away. Of course, that doesn't mean that people filed them correctly, or filed them at all without leaving the place a disaster, like finding a needle in a haystack. This was probably why PG&E weren't too concerned about their illegal practices getting out, because they probably didn't think that anyone would honestly go through those papers to figure it out on their own time. Nowadays I feel like it can be even harder to keep things secret, especially since nothing is ever really deleted from the internet and computer systems can be hacked.
Brockovich was able to take samples of the water form the local wells and test them through the law office she was working for. Everyday citizens wouldn't normally have access to the kind of technology needed to build up the evidence needed for a case like this. That's why citizen science is so great, because it shows that when people come together and get those that do have the means involved, then they can hope to accomplish more.
Media and Informational?
Erin used, some could argue, unethical methods for researching and gaining the correct information, and the information she was looking for required searching through big messes of filed papers like at the regional water board - this is the parts of activism and environmental justice that isn't exciting whatsoever, but has to be done nonetheless.
Erin found on public record at the Lahontan Regional Water Board a document titled 'Clean Up and Abatement Order No. 6-87-160' that was ordered by California Regional Water Quality Control Board of Lahontan Region demanding that PG&E clean up waste discharges of Hexavalent Chromium which caused pollution to the groundwater, and the contamination extends one mile north - the legal limit for hexavalent chromium is 0.05ppm, and the rate of .58 - it could be responsible for their cancer.
When Charles Embry worked at PGE Hinkley he destroyed documents, he worked in the compressor - supervisor gave him a shredder machine and told him to get rid of documents, some included memos of readings from the test wells. He gave them the internal documents they needed that had correspondence between PGE Hinkley and their Corporate Headquarters, linking them to responsibility.
Organizational?
The reason the medical records were in the real estate value records was because PGE paid for the family's medical check ups "because of the chromium"... the plant was visible from the family's house. The fact that the company paid for all of their medical checkups shows how organized PG&E was at covering their own ass. The family didn't think to get a second opinion about their medical symptoms because they didn't think to question the trust of their doctors. This is outright sick to me. This shows exactly how much the health care system isn't ready to acknowledge that environmental influences can cause medical symptoms and should be recorded and taken into consideration, this shows that because they are basically taking bribes from the companies that releases those poisons into the environment in the first place. I wonder if their Hippocratic Oath covers that?!
Educational?
The company, PG&E had a seminar at the plant for the residents about how good chromium 3 was for you when all along they were using chromium 6. The tests they did for the water was done on an onsite monitoring well, but PGE told them that their water was fine. That is INSANELY CORRUPT, and illegal, for PG&E to mislead the public by giving them false information on their practices, especially when within the states.
In reality they were using chrome 6 - hexavalent chromium, as a rust and corrosion preventer. With repeated exposure it could cause anything from nosebleeds to any type of cancers, to organ failure... it gets in the DNA and causes problems.
Behavioral?/Cultural?
It was a strange thing how it took Donna a lot to realize that she was being lied to, because her doctor told her that their water was fine, but PGE had paid for that doctor. It shows how it can be dangerous to just implicitly trust the people that you should be able to trust in our society, like teachers, doctors, policeman, etc. But even they are corruptible, so the lesson here is that a 3rd party or second opinion is a wise decision.
Some people in the area completely shunned Erin because they didn't want to get involved, they didn't believe that PG&E was polluting the water. It ironic because they trusted their doctors, but refused to trust the lawyers to be helping them out of wanting to do the right thing. It's very emotionally hard to go through a court case that will take who knows how long because most of them have lost loved ones or are sick themselves.
Ecological?
Donna Jensen's neighbors had been bought out a year earlier and they had a farm, their roosters were dying - AND the farmer's wife had 5 recent miscarriages, most likely because their land and water was poisoning them with hexavalent chromium.
In most cases the ponds where the excess waste water goes is lined, but this company skipped that step, so hexavalent chromium leached into the groundwater and spread underground contaminating throughout the area. The man that worked at PGE came forward to Erin to talk to her about it because he cared about what was in those ponds, he was the one that had worked waist deep in them.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
What was most compelling to me about this case was the level of organization shown by PG&E in trying to cover up their practices, the public seminar where they lied to the public and created false trust, the paying for the doctor's visits, the buying off the land of people that were looking to move... It's just insane to me.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I question how it was that other businesses and organization that dealt with PG&E, such as the regional water board that had the document about the pollution on public record, how is it that they didn't approach PG&E about their practices, or report them? That seems odd to me, unless they were bribed, but someone somewhere must have seen it. Are there really not enough checks in the system where malpractice like that could fall through the cracks?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think this film addresses anyone who is willing to fight for what they believe is right, for Julia Roberts fans, students of the law and of the environment.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I don't think there was a bit at the end of the film that explained that this was based on a true story. I feel like that could have added a lot to the educational value of the movie because otherwise people could just think this is fiction, I did until I saw it on the list and read up that it was based on real events.
Besides just stating that it was based on real events, the end of the film could have given a line of advice, like be aware of what's going on in your neighborhood environment or something along those lines.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Since this is a movie based on real events and not a documentary it doesn't outright suggest the audience to take certain action, but it does give an overall moral to the audience that companies and industry do actually commit these crimes and could be putting you in danger all the while deceiving you. So it shows the audience the importance of finding out the facts, from multiple sources, and that you have the right to take action to protect the environment you live in.
The movie also shows that companies can be held responsible and be made to correct their wrongdoing. It also shows that you can't always trust the system and what is "known" of a situation. Most of the citizens of Hinkley didn't think to look to PG&E as the source of their problems, in fact, many probably would have told you that PG&E was on their side trying to help by paying hospital bills. So don't take what is "known" as given fact, dig deeper and find out what's going on.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
I went online to quickly read up on the real story and what the progress has been since:
13 years later, the chemical plume still seems to be a problem, it's 2miles long and a mile wide, made of hexavalant chromium
THE Erin Brockovich says it doesn't make any sense that PG&E isn't or can't take care of cleaning up the contamination completely.
PG&E representative said that they are working with the residents of Hinkley that either live right on top of the plume or next to it. (Even then, my thought it that isn't enough, what about everyone in the area who is using that contaminated water?)
utility offered to buy all the property on the plume in 2010
Erin B. doesn't think another lawsuit is a solution, but would like to see the company step up and do the responsible thing in cleaning up their mess.
she would always second guess herself, but she was always driven and compelled to follow through for the people in Hinkley
the parts of the movie about her family issues were true, she almost never got to see her kids when she was working on this case
she wanted to fight to show that corporate America couldn't deceive the people like this, at least not do it and get away with it.
Movie Notes for Erin Brockovich
JUST HAVE TO SAY THIS... SOME OF THE BEST ONE LINERS COME FROM THIS MOVIE!
"Do they teach lawyers to apologize? Because you fucking suck at it."
"Fuck you! Fuck you back!"
started to notice something weird with real estate file when there were toxicology reports and other health records included that reported abnormalities such as decreased white blood cells, increased lymphocytes, and increased helper T- cells... at a place called Hinkley
honestly sounds like something attacking the immune system and along the lines of cancer
Erin used, some could argue, unethical methods for researching and gaining the correct information, and the information she was looking for required searching through big messes of filed papers like at the regional water board - this is the parts of activism and environmental justice that isn't exciting whatsoever, but has to be done nonetheless.
another side effect from doing this kind of work is that your personal relationships start to take second priority because you feel you have to put all you can into your work
she started getting threatening phone calls about her family
Sustainability Problems
Film Annotations
1. Title, director and release year?
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
Legal Process
Economic?
Technological?
Media and Informational?
Organizational?
Educational?
Behavioral?/Cultural?
Ecological?
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.)
Movie Notes for Erin Brockovich